TARA DUTT SHARMA Vs. SANJEEV PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and gone through the record of the present petition.

(2.) Eviction of the revision petitioner had been ordered by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 8.9.2009, on three grounds, i.e. non-payment of rent, building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and landlord bonafide requiring the premises for reconstruction and rebuilding. Order was challenged by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority, by the present petitioner. Appeal has been dismissed and eviction of the petitioner affirmed on two grounds, i.e. the building having unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the landlord requiring the premises bonafide for reconstruction and rebuilding. Third ground of eviction became infructuous, on account of the tenant having deposited the arrears of rent, with interest etc.

(3.) A petition, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, was filed before the Appellate Authority, seeking leave of the Court to lead additional evidence. That petition was dismissed, with the observations that none of the pre-requisites for allowing such a petition was shown to exist, the petition was filed after the matter had been finally heard and that the evidence sought to be led was not going to serve any purpose, since there was an admission by the petitioner, with respect to the facts, which he wanted to disprove by means of additional evidence sought to be adduced.